W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-architypes@w3.org > July 2015

Re: Proposal for an 'Archive' Type

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:25:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD47Kz5waLWQWEsZjhw568ZWDj8P8g34DeEx=mkrydyvTzWg4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mark A. Matienzo" <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>, "public-architypes@w3.org" <public-architypes@w3.org>, "dan@coffeecode.net" <dan@coffeecode.net>
Hi Ingrid,

Thoughts inline below

~Richard
On 28 July 2015 at 01:40, Ingrid Mason <ingrid.b.mason@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kaching!
>
> My 2c (apologies upfront, I wasn't in the discussion at LODLAM in case
> this got worked over) and I'm looking at Schema.org for the first time
> properly.  Feel free to point me to some background reading and to resist
> opining.
>

Best place to start is Schema.org  and the FAQ
<http://schema.org/docs/faq.html>.  You will see from these that Schema.org
is a general purpose vocabulary (currently of 600+ Types and 900+
properties) for describing things on the web - I would add the implicit '*so
they can be discovered*'.  These aims - describing things and for discovery
- result in a certain uncomfortable reaction for those new to it.  Such as
books having a name not a title, Volcano <http://schema.org/Volcano> having
the ability to define a faxNumber, and your concerns about LocalBusiness.


> But.. I am having a reaction to the suggestion that an archive or library
> operates as a subclass of LocalBusiness.
>

Do not read too much into type name of LocalBusiness.  It is just a useful
way to combine the properties from Place and Organization plus openingHours
(see this pre-release view of Library <http://webschemas.org/Library> which
shows the type inheritance better)


> What's the purpose here?  To share information about the GLAM group entity
> or its collection/archival material or both?  I'm wagering both and that
> they need to be treated separately.
>

> Archives (as group entity) sit within diverse organisation types.
> Archives (as material that emerges from activities).
>
> Same goes for libraries and library collections.
>
The purpose of the potential archive.schema.org extension is to share
information about:

   - An archive organization with a physical/virtual presence (address,
   parentOrganization, department(s), openingHours etc.)
      - Organizations such as The National Archives
      <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/>
      - Organizations of all types - commercial, not for profit,
      government, etc.
      - Organizations could add this to their other descriptive types e.g.
      An organization could be a Library AND an Archive
   - An archive - an archived collection of things
      - Ownership/responsibility not necessarily associated with an
      organization that declares itself an Archive.
   - Things within an archive
      - Including but not restricted to creative work

This discussion thread is focussed on the first of these.

>
> Could not a CollectingOrganisation entity be a type of Organisation?
>

It could be, but I'm not sure what extra value/properties would be gained
by this move - we would still need to add in most of what comes from
LocalBusiness.


>
> Rather than CreativeWork, perhaps HeritageObject or something equally
> stretchy to encompass diverse GLAM collection materials.
>

This will be the subject of another, I expect long, thread about what is
unique about things in an archive that we want to share and help make them
discoverable.


>
> Ingrid (Canberra)
>
> *GLAM being galleries, libraries, archives, museums
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28 July 2015 at 09:24, Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard, all -
>>
>> As noted on my comments the proposal on Github [0], I'm in favor of this
>> proposal. I also made a suggestion that we defer to the ICA-ISDIAH [1]
>> definition (i.e., an "archive" in this sense as an institution with
>> "archival holdings," rather than the stuff itself).
>>
>> [0]
>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628#issuecomment-125371578
>> [1] http://www.ica.org/10198/standards/isdiah
>>
>> --
>> Mark A. Matienzo <mark@matienzo.org> | http://anarchivi.st/
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Richard Wallis <
>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Karen,
>>>
>>> Singular / plural term names have been a discussion since the early days
>>> of Schema.org that eventually settled in favor of singular.
>>>
>>> Yes, what is/isn't a creative work is definitely the subject for another
>>> discussion, which we should start soon.
>>>
>>> ~Richard
>>>
>>> Richard Wallis
>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>> Twitter: @rjw
>>>
>>> On 27 July 2015 at 19:22, GRACY, KAREN F <kgracy@kent.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I would be in support of adding Archive as a new subclass under
>>>> schema:LocalBusiness.  There is the question of whether we should use the
>>>> singular or pluralized version of the word (archive and archives are often
>>>> used interchangeably).  The Glossary of Archival Records and Terminology
>>>> (published by the Society of American Archivists) provides entries on each
>>>> version (see http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archive and
>>>> http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/a/archives for Glossary
>>>> definitions).
>>>>
>>>>  In my estimation, the more serious concern might be with classifying
>>>> archival documents as Creative Works (but I will save my comments for that
>>>> conversation!).
>>>>
>>>>  Karen
>>>>
>>>>  ***********************************************************
>>>>
>>>>  Karen F. Gracy
>>>> Associate Professor
>>>> School of Library and Information Science
>>>> Kent State University
>>>> kgracy@kent.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Richard Wallis <
>>>> richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  This is the first of a few conversations we need to start in building
>>>> towards some consensus around proposals
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/architypes/wiki/Main_Page>.
>>>>
>>>>  Prior to the setting up of this group Dan Scott proposed
>>>> <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/628> a new Schema.org
>>>> type 'Archive':
>>>>
>>>>   In preparing to attend the LODLAM Summit 2015 (Linked Open Data for
>>>> Libraries, Archives, and Museums), it is glaringly evident that we are
>>>> missing a class to represent archives.
>>>>
>>>> The simplest possible place to start would be to parallel
>>>> schema:Library <http://schema.org/Library> by subclassing
>>>> schema:LocalBusiness <http://schema.org/LocalBusiness> with a
>>>> definition such as "An entity that collects documents and records related
>>>> to the activities of people or organizations."
>>>>   This would enable us to describe archives as a specific class of
>>>> LocalBusiness with schema.org, rather than having to use LocalBusiness
>>>> directly.
>>>>
>>>>  This raised comments regarding the too commercial nature of the
>>>> LocalBusiness definition, which could be enhanced to include something
>>>> along lines that "businesses may also be not-for-profit or state-owned."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Are we happy to take on that proposal - do we have comments?
>>>>
>>>>  ~Richard
>>>>
>>>>   Richard Wallis
>>>> Founder, Data Liberate
>>>> http://dataliberate.com
>>>>  Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>>>>  Twitter: @rjw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 11:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 August 2018 13:28:58 UTC